Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing
425

Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) (Dissent by Judge O'Scannlain, Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt) A majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc.
Judge N.R. Smith would grant the petition. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge
requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive
a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc
consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ
of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue
until final disposition by the Supreme Court. [8202067] [10-16696, 11-16577] (RP)

FILED
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B.
STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J.
ZARRILLO,
No. 10-16696
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
ORDER
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Intervenor-Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official
capacity as Governor of California;
KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of California;
MARK B. HORTON, in his official
capacity as Director of the California
Department of Public Health & State
Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE
SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy
Director of Health Information & Strategic
Planning for the California Department of
Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL,
in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder
for the County of Alameda; DEAN C.
LOGAN, in his official capacity as
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the
County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
Intervenor-Defendant,
and
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J.
KNIGHT; MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ;
MARK A. JANSSON;
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM - YES ON
8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL, as official proponents of
Proposition 8,
Intervenor-Defendants Appellants.
KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B.
STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J.
ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Intervenor-Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official
capacity as Governor of California;
KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of California;
MARK B. HORTON, in his official
capacity as Director of the California
No. 11-16577
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02292-JW
Department of Public Health & State
Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE
SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy
Director of Health Information & Strategic
Planning for the California Department of
Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL,
in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder
for the County of Alameda; DEAN C.
LOGAN, in his official capacity as
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the
County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM,
Intervenor-Defendant,
and
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J.
KNIGHT; MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ;
MARK A. JANSSON;
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM - YES ON
8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL, as official proponents of
Proposition 8,
Intervenor-Defendants Appellants.
Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
A majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc.
Judge N.R. Smith would grant the petition.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge
requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive
a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc
consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ
of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue
until final disposition by the Supreme Court.
-4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.